As violent and sometimes deadly protests consume much of the Muslim world in response to an American-made video mocking the Prophet Muhammad, New Yorkers will soon encounter another potentially inflammatory rendering of Islam: an advertisement in the transit system that reads, “In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man.”

It concludes with the words, “Support Israel. Defeat Jihad,” wedged between two Stars of David.

After rejecting the ads initially, then losing a federal court ruling on First Amendment grounds, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority said on Tuesday that the ads were expected to appear next week at 10 subway stations.

“Our hands are tied,” Aaron Donovan, a spokesman for the authority, said when asked about the timing of the ad.

These ass hole Mulsims that can't take it need to start understanding what free speech means. If they can't, then we're gonna have a real war on our hands until they finally either get it or get killed in a riot, or by delivering a suicide bomb as retribution for a cartoon.

These ass hole Mulsims that can't take it need to start understanding what free speech means. If they can't, then we're gonna have a real war on our hands until they finally either get it or get killed in a riot, or by delivering a suicide bomb as retribution for a cartoon.

Whoa. Many corners of the Muslim world have been victimized by cold war posturing that had nothing to do with them. Land occupied by Muslims was taken away from them and given to another oppressed group. Today, foreign corporations go in an pillage resources in land that Muslim families have controlled for centuries, and foreign powers court the oppressive monarchies who claim ownership of the oil rights?

And then some loud, irrational Muslims get mad when their beliefs and culture are insulted?

According to this article, Washington DC decided not to place these ads:

The American Freedom Defense Initiative has also purchased ad space in Washington, but the transit authority there said Tuesday that it had “deferred” the ad’s placement “out of a concern for public safety, given current world events.”

And no. I do not tolerate hate speech directed towards any group of people, especially in public spaces that the subjects of that hate speech are unable to avoid. I certainly will not tolerate being subjected to hate speech on public transportation.

If I had been an ethnic Aryan in Nazi Germany, I would not have tolerated hate speech. If I were a white person in apartheid South Africa, I would not have tolerated hate speech. As a person of European descent who has spent time in the racially divided, semi apartheid system in Guatemala, I have not tolerated hate speech. As a New Yorker, living in one of the neighborhoods with the highest Muslim populations in the US, I will not tolerate hate speech.

As a New Yorker, living in one of the neighborhoods with the highest Muslim populations in the US, I will not tolerate hate speech.

If you can't tolerate "hate" speech, then why are you on this forum dear? Don't you think there are examples of hateful speech here? You're very blustery this AM.

This is a discussion forum, and I am here voluntarily. I am here, mostly to find a community of support among people who share my world view. When religious bigots come here, sometimes I engage them, sometimes I don't. When, in the course of my daily life, I come across individual bigots, I usually challenge them. But when I see an example of institutionalized bigotry, in a public space, supported by my tax dollars, I will not tolerate it.

A public transportation system is not an environment that people seek out. It is a public space, funded by a combination of my tax dollars, user fees, and sponsor's advertisements. The law protects employees from being exposed to hate speech in the work place, and yet allows hate speech in a public space that most New Yorkers must use in order to get to those work places? That is not acceptable.

This is a discussion forum, and I am here voluntarily. I am here, mostly to find a community of support among people who share my world view. When religious bigots come here, sometimes I engage them, sometimes I don't. When, in the course of my daily life, I come across individual bigots, I usually challenge them. But when I see an example of institutionalized bigotry, in a public space, supported by my tax dollars, I will not tolerate it.

So what if you are here voluntarily? If you can't tolerate hate speech, then you can't tolerate it. What difference does it make where the hell you are?

Quote

A public transportation system is not an environment that people seek out.

Uh, yea it is, they seek it out to get transportation. Duh.

Quote

It is a public space, funded by a combination of my tax dollars, user fees, and sponsor's advertisements. The law protects employees from being exposed to hate speech in the work place, and yet allows hate speech in a public space that most New Yorkers must use in order to get to those work places? That is not acceptable.

It is acceptable, this is AMERICA dear, and we allow free speech in public. If you want to restrict that then you are as bad as the Muslims who can't take it. Shame on you.

You say you can't tolerate "hate speech". Well what if I created some hate speech right here, right now? What are you going to do about it, since you "can't tolerate it"? Since it won't be anything that hasn't already been said on the forum many times over the years, and isn't against the rules, what will you do?

Leave the forum? I mean if you can't even tolerate it ... and you must tolerate it if you are a member of this forum, what is your recourse?

“In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man.”

What's hateful about that?

Really?

In this case, the Israeli Jews are being portrayed as the "civilized man" and the Palestinians are being portrayed as the "savages."

During the attempted genocide against the Native peoples of the Americas, the Europeans continue to be portrayed as "civilized man" struggling against "savages." In apartheid South Africa, we had "civilized man" and "savages." Today in Guatemala, we have "civilized man" and "savages."

The people with the biggest guns are the most "civilized." The people on the other end of the guns are the "savages?"

I will exercise my freedom of expression by defacing these ads if I see them.

Err, no... "freedom of expression" does not protect destruction of other people's property.

If it is hanging on a wall that I paid for, it is not "other people's property." It is my property. It is public property.

In June 1940, the transportation assets of the former BMT and IRT systems were taken over by the City of New York for operation by the City's Board of Transportation, which already operated the IND system. In 1953 the New York City Transit Authority, a state agency incorporated for the benefit of the city, now known to the public as MTA New York City Transit, succeeded the BoT.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_New_York_City_Subway

In a thread a while back I wrote about my elderly mother being taken into custody for removing some Bush/Cheney signs from a public school yard. The police said that she was defacing private property, and she said that was on public property, and that it was illegal to have partisan signage on public property. Ultimately, she was not charged.

In this case, two cities have interpreted the laws differently. I do not doubt that NYC's interpretation of the laws will be challenged. And I will support those challenges.

I will exercise my freedom of expression by defacing these ads if I see them.

Err, no... "freedom of expression" does not protect destruction of other people's property.

If it is hanging on a wall that I paid for, it is not "other people's property." It is my property. It is public property.

The posters were created with private money. Their placement is being paid for with private money. It is not your property. It is private property.

The wall itself is public property, but just because you hang something on that wall, it doesn't automatically become public property. If you leave your backpack behind one day when leaving the subway (which is public property), your backpack does not become public property, does it? Even if you leave it there on purpose?

Logged

[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]: Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

In this case, the Israeli Jews are being portrayed as the "civilized man" and the Palestinians are being portrayed as the "savages."

In this specific case many people view the Israelis as the "savages" for their oppression of the Palestinians. There has been plenty of language in support of Palestine, here and abroad. Some of that language could be interpreted as hate speech against the Israelis if one is so inclined to interpret them that way.

Would you feel as strongly about the ad if it said the exact same thing but supported Palestine instead?

Logged

When I criticize political parties or candidates, I am not criticizing you. If I criticize you, there will be no doubt in your mind as to what I am saying.

In this case, the Israeli Jews are being portrayed as the "civilized man" and the Palestinians are being portrayed as the "savages."

Would you feel as strongly about the ad if it said the exact same thing but supported Palestine instead?

I know individuals who are victims from both sides of this conflict, and I always speak up for the victims.

I no more support the removal of Jews from Israel than I support the removal of people of European ancestry from the Americas. It is not realistic. Even just a couple of generations into to occupation, this land is home to those who were born there, and those who have sought refuge there, and those who have invested time and resources into creating communities and infrastructure.

But by portraying the minority group whose ancestors were robbed of their land as "savages" and by capitalizing on existing prejudices against the 1/3 of humanity who practice Islam, this ad promotes hatred and violence.

It was not that long ago that Jews in NYC were frequent victims of discrimination, and often victims of violence related to their Judaism. And it still even happens from time to time. But today in NYC, it is Muslims who are being targeted, and who are frequent victims of hate crimes. As someone who has watched my friends and neighbors and colleagues victimized, I will continue to fight against any efforts to fuel that hatred and put the Muslim community (or people perceived as being members of the Muslim community) at risk.

And I say this as someone of Jewish ancestry, who is portrayed as being among the "civilized" in this particular piece of hate speech.

Quesi - would it be correct to say that you regard the suppression of hate speech to supercede someone's right to free speech and/or freedom of expression?

In the US, I support the categorical exclusions to freedom of speech, including those that create threats or incite crime. I support the laws when they restrict hate speech that has the potential of creating violence, and I contest the laws that protect hate speech with the same passion that I contest the laws that restrict women's controls of our own bodies. Just because it is a law does not mean that it is just.

The irony, of course, is that the "savages" portrayed in this ad are not afforded the same protections of freedom of speech that we enjoy in the US.

These ass hole Mulsims that can't take it need to start understanding what free speech means. If they can't, then we're gonna have a real war on our hands until they finally either get it or get killed in a riot, or by delivering a suicide bomb as retribution for a cartoon.

Funny if the ad was pro muslim and said Support Jihad,destroy Israel you would have to get past the fact you were an anti Semite before you could get the ad up

How do you think that would go over with the pro-Israel lobby in America?

In the US, I support the categorical exclusions to freedom of speech, including those that create threats or incite crime.

Why not support free speech and the concept that you don't have the right to never be offended?

Why do these groups have a right to not be offended? Where the hell did that come from?

HAL, I'm genuinely trying to understand where you are coming from on this topic.

Freedom of speech is a huge, complex issue, and ironically, in atheist environments, I'm usually arguing the other side. I'm not particularly offended when a business leader pays to put up a nativity scene in a public park. I might not like the nativity scene, but I don't see it as infringing on the rights or safety of members of communities that do not share the beliefs of those who put it there. But the law usually prefers to protect those groups and individuals, and in fact prohibits the freedom of speech of that private investor who wants to put up a nativity scene. You would fight to support the rights of the private investor who wants to portray the virgin birth?

So you are arguing that there should be NO RESTRICTIONS on free speech. You would have no concerns about a private investor putting up signs in a public court house, stating that one ethnic group was more dangerous than another? You would not have problems with a public school displaying a sign by the private sponsor who paid for the new gymnasium, stating that some students are intellectually superior to others, based on their cultural traditions?

I would consider these to be valid examples of reasons to limit the freedom of speech. Especially in these weird private sponsorships of public space. You would not?